[PATCH] ACPI: pfr_update: Fix the driver update version check

[PATCH] ACPI: pfr_update: Fix the driver update version check

[Chen Yu]

The security-version-number check should be used rather
than the runtime version check for driver update. Otherwise
the firmware update would fail when the update binary
has a lower number of the runtime version than the
current one.

Reported-by: "Govindarajulu, Hariganesh" <hariganesh.govindarajulu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
---
 drivers/acpi/pfr_update.c  | 2 +-
 include/uapi/linux/pfrut.h | 1 +
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pfr_update.c b/drivers/acpi/pfr_update.c
index 031d1ba81b86..08b9b2bc2d97 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/pfr_update.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/pfr_update.c
@@ -310,7 +310,7 @@ static bool applicable_image(const void *data, struct pfru_update_cap_info *cap,
 	if (type == PFRU_CODE_INJECT_TYPE)
 		return payload_hdr->rt_ver >= cap->code_rt_version;
 
-	return payload_hdr->rt_ver >= cap->drv_rt_version;
+	return payload_hdr->svn_ver >= cap->drv_svn;
 }
 
 static void print_update_debug_info(struct pfru_updated_result *result,
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/pfrut.h b/include/uapi/linux/pfrut.h
index 42fa15f8310d..b77d5c210c26 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/pfrut.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/pfrut.h
@@ -89,6 +89,7 @@ struct pfru_payload_hdr {
 	__u32 hw_ver;
 	__u32 rt_ver;
 	__u8 platform_id[16];
+	__u32 svn_ver;
 };
 
 enum pfru_dsm_status {
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH] ACPI: pfr_update: Fix the driver update version check

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 4:39 PM Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com> wrote:
>
> The security-version-number check should be used rather
> than the runtime version check for driver update. Otherwise
> the firmware update would fail when the update binary
> has a lower number of the runtime version than the
> current one.
>
> Reported-by: "Govindarajulu, Hariganesh" <hariganesh.govindarajulu@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>

A Fixes: tag, please?

Also, this is unlikely to get into 6.17-rc1, but I can make it into
6.17-rc2 if it is urgent enough, so how urgent is it?

> ---
>  drivers/acpi/pfr_update.c  | 2 +-
>  include/uapi/linux/pfrut.h | 1 +
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pfr_update.c b/drivers/acpi/pfr_update.c
> index 031d1ba81b86..08b9b2bc2d97 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/pfr_update.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pfr_update.c
> @@ -310,7 +310,7 @@ static bool applicable_image(const void *data, struct pfru_update_cap_info *cap,
>         if (type == PFRU_CODE_INJECT_TYPE)
>                 return payload_hdr->rt_ver >= cap->code_rt_version;
>
> -       return payload_hdr->rt_ver >= cap->drv_rt_version;
> +       return payload_hdr->svn_ver >= cap->drv_svn;
>  }
>
>  static void print_update_debug_info(struct pfru_updated_result *result,
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/pfrut.h b/include/uapi/linux/pfrut.h
> index 42fa15f8310d..b77d5c210c26 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/pfrut.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/pfrut.h
> @@ -89,6 +89,7 @@ struct pfru_payload_hdr {
>         __u32 hw_ver;
>         __u32 rt_ver;
>         __u8 platform_id[16];
> +       __u32 svn_ver;
>  };
>
>  enum pfru_dsm_status {
> --
> 2.25.1
>

Re: [PATCH] ACPI: pfr_update: Fix the driver update version check

[Chen, Yu C]

Hi Rafael,

thank you for taking a look,

On 7/22/2025 11:03 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 4:39 PM Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> The security-version-number check should be used rather
>> than the runtime version check for driver update. Otherwise
>> the firmware update would fail when the update binary
>> has a lower number of the runtime version than the
>> current one.
>>
>> Reported-by: "Govindarajulu, Hariganesh" <hariganesh.govindarajulu@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
> 
> A Fixes: tag, please?
> 

OK,
Fixes: commit 0db89fa243e5 ("ACPI: Introduce Platform Firmware Runtime 
Update device driver")

> Also, this is unlikely to get into 6.17-rc1, but I can make it into
> 6.17-rc2 if it is urgent enough, so how urgent is it?
>

It is not urgent because the internal tree has merged this patch and did 
not block
the testing. However, considering that this might prevent users from 
rolling back
versions in the production environment, fixing it earlier might be helpful.

thanks,
Chenyu
>> ---
>>   drivers/acpi/pfr_update.c  | 2 +-
>>   include/uapi/linux/pfrut.h | 1 +
>>   2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pfr_update.c b/drivers/acpi/pfr_update.c
>> index 031d1ba81b86..08b9b2bc2d97 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/pfr_update.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pfr_update.c
>> @@ -310,7 +310,7 @@ static bool applicable_image(const void *data, struct pfru_update_cap_info *cap,
>>          if (type == PFRU_CODE_INJECT_TYPE)
>>                  return payload_hdr->rt_ver >= cap->code_rt_version;
>>
>> -       return payload_hdr->rt_ver >= cap->drv_rt_version;
>> +       return payload_hdr->svn_ver >= cap->drv_svn;
>>   }
>>
>>   static void print_update_debug_info(struct pfru_updated_result *result,
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/pfrut.h b/include/uapi/linux/pfrut.h
>> index 42fa15f8310d..b77d5c210c26 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/pfrut.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/pfrut.h
>> @@ -89,6 +89,7 @@ struct pfru_payload_hdr {
>>          __u32 hw_ver;
>>          __u32 rt_ver;
>>          __u8 platform_id[16];
>> +       __u32 svn_ver;
>>   };
>>
>>   enum pfru_dsm_status {
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>